344 P.3d 689
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Juvenile Tate was charged in 2010 with second-degree robbery; juvenile court ordered a competency evaluation at Western State Hospital after expressing doubt about his competency.
- Two professionals evaluated Tate; Dr. Ray Hendrickson reported Tate did not currently suffer from a mental illness and opined Tate could understand proceedings and assist counsel.
- At the competency hearing the State sought a finding of competency; Tate sought a finding of incompetency and contested the hospital report.
- The trial court placed on Tate the burden to prove incompetency by a preponderance and found he had not met that burden, then adjudicated him guilty.
- This court initially reversed (finding the burden placement erroneous), but the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Coley required reconsideration of the burden question.
- On remand, after supplemental briefing, this court upheld the trial court’s placement of the burden on Tate and affirmed the competency finding and conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden at competency hearing under former ch. 10.77 RCW? | State: burden on party challenging competency (per Coley) | Tate: burden should be on State to prove competency, citing prior incompetency finding and older cases | Burden rests on the party challenging competency; trial court properly placed burden on Tate |
| Whether placing burden on Tate violates due process | State: compliance with ch. 10.77 RCW satisfies due process | Tate: shifting burden to him denies due process and is structural error | No due-process violation; not structural error where statutory procedures were followed |
| Whether prior unrelated 2009 incompetency finding shifts burden to State | State: prior finding does not create a lasting presumption of incompetency | Tate: prior finding is the status quo and should shift burden to State | Prior finding does not shift burden; Coley rejected that theory |
| Whether competency finding was supported by evidence | State: expert testimony supported competency | Tate: claimed he remained incompetent | Court found substantial evidence (expert testimony) supporting competency; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coley, 180 Wn.2d 543 (2014) (interprets ch. 10.77 RCW to place burden of proving incompetency on the party challenging competency)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (due process does not require the State to prove competence once procedural protections exist)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (Due Process Clause prohibits trying an incompetent defendant)
- State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631 (1993) (discusses competency standards under Washington law)